論民事舉證責任分配法則在我國之發展

The Development of the Allocation Burdens of Proof in Civil Law in Taiwan

系所名稱：法學系碩士班 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：98年 指導教授：吳從周 法官依照客觀舉證責任作出裁判的一個必要前提要件：「事實真偽不明之存在」因因此，本文之研究範圍，將先探討事實真偽不明(non liquet)之相關問題。其次，實質討論舉證責任分配法則，並嘗試說明各種學說之優劣所在。最後，觀察我國法上相關的學說發展，以及對我國實務見解加以印證，進而提出一個具有普遍有效性及合理性的舉證責任分配法則。本論文架構主要分為六章，以下，僅就各章之主要研究的內容加以說明：一、第一章「緒論」對於本論文題目之問題現狀與研究動機加以說明，並闡釋此等問題所可能涉及的範圍，以及研究之價值所在。二、第二章「事實真偽不明之存在 與克服」探討事實真偽不明的形成原因，以及法官於真偽不明應如何進行訴訟。主要介紹德國學說上之討論，並論及我國法上學說與實務見解，期能對此等問題予以釐清。三、第三章「舉證責任之分配」本章在說明舉證責任分配法則之實質內容。對於舉證責任之相關概念加以闡述，並實質討論與分析德國法上各種舉證責任分配理論之優劣所在，並介紹德國學者對規範理論所提出之修正見解。四、第四章「我國舉證責任分配與規範理論」主要係研究我國立法上及學說見解對於舉證責任分配之相關見解，進而論證規範理論於我國繼受與適用之可能性。五、第五章「從規範理論審視我國實務之舉證責任分配」本章以請求權基礎思考順序來彙整相關之實務見解並以規範理論予以分析。藉以檢驗規範理論是否具有其理論上的操作性與妥當性。六、第六章「結論」將本文主要研究的重點予以彙整、歸納，並簡要說明本文對此問題的研究心得，以及對本文研究價值的期待。

One of the prerequisites for a judge to decide a case on the basis of objective burden of proof is “presence of non liquet” and therefore the paper aims first to discuss the issues related to non liquet. Secondly, the rules for allocating burden of proof are materially discussed in the paper with the attempt to elucidate the merits and demerits of various theories. Finally, a generally valid and justified rule for allocation of burden of proof is further proposed after the observation of relevant theoretical developments and the review of several practical concepts in our country. The paper is divided into six chapters, the contents of which are briefly described in the following paragraphs:Chapter one is the “introduction”, where the status quo of the issues related to the theme of the paper and the motivation for the study are clarified, with the scope that such issues are likely to be covered and the values of the study being explained. Chapter two is about “the presence of and coping with non liquet of facts”, where it is discussed why non liquet comes into being and how a judge can deal with the suit where non liquet is present. The German theories under debate are introduced and the theories and practical concepts in our country are also alluded to, so that the resulting issues may be made clear. Chapter three is on “allocation of burden of proof”, where the material contents of rules for such allocation are elucidated. The relevant concepts of burden of proof are expounded, the merits and demerits of various theories on allocation of burden of proof in German laws are materially discussed and analyzed, and the revisions proposed by German scholars to the standard theory are also introduced. In chapter four “theory on allocating and standardizing burden of proof in our country”, legislative and academic understanding in our country related to allocating burden of proof is studied and it is further to be proven whether it is likely to succeed to and to be applied to the standardized theory in our country. Chapter five centers on “practical allocation of burden of proof in our country: from the perspective of the standardized theory”, where relevant practical concepts are pieced together on the basis of the rights for claims and the standardized theory is analyzed. It is examined whether the standardized theory is theoretically feasible and appropriate through the previous analysis.Chapter six is the “conclusion”, where the priorities in the study are pieced together and summarized; the experience obtained in connection with the issues studied here and the expected academic value of the paper are also briefly described.